The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I would also expect other works to see articles at some point in the future. A number of his prominent works still do not have articles, including those at the front of the Supreme Court of Canada. That being said, the nomination is correct in that each work is likely to be referred to in the article itself. No strong feelings one way or the other. --
Labattblueboy (
talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Crime by medium
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge Now that Stefanomione has basically depopulated this category in favour of his new
Category:Works about crime -- which I have no problem with -- this category no longer serves any function, as I believe the remaining
Category:Crime data and
Category:Crime-related lists can be better and more logically housed in the higher-level category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Archaeology artifacts of China
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per
Category:Archaeological artefacts. This category was, initially, nominated for
speedy renaming, but the nomination was opposed due to the 'artifacts'-to-'artefacts' change. Regardless of which spelling is chosen – I prefer 'artefacts' because it is the spelling used by the parent category – the category still needs to be renamed to change 'Archaeology' to 'Archaeological'. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a case of US/UK spelling differences, although both seem to use the alternative as a variant. For non-English speaking countries the convention is to keep the initial spelling used. Note also
Artifact (archaeology).
Timrollpickering (
talk) 19:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: well either spelling (artefact/artifact), though I had noted the spelling of the parent category!
Hugo999 (
talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Archaeological artefacts of China -- Archaeology => Archaeological should be uncontroversial. The problem is over the spelling of artefact/artifact. This is a conflict between US/UK English orthography. I think the consensus is that we should use the form most appropriate to the area covered. China does not use English, but Hong Kong, (now a SAR of China) does. As a former British colony, I expct it follows UK usage, so that the spelling of the parent category should be used.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
As I understand it,
the English spoken in Hong Kong is a mixture of two strands - a proficient form primarily used by the elite and travelled, the latter of whom often use the variant picked up abroad, and a localised dialect spoken by (predominantly) native Cantonese speakers, with a reputation as
Chinglish. One result is that both British and American spellings circulate more freely than in countries where English is more widely & longly used - for instance the tallest skyscrapers include the
International Commerce Centre and
The Center.
A Dictionary of Hong Kong English, published last year, claims to be the first such book in the field so I'm not sure just how standardised the spellings are.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 01:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename according to its initial spelling. Hong Kong is a dependency and its English spellings have no binding effect on the People's Republic of China.
Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (
talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose there are more bilingual English speakers in China (the mainland) than there are citizens of the UK, and American spellings predominate. If you're going to act on the area of an entire country don't base it on a single city that highlights its uniqueness from the rest. There is no argument against archaeology/archaeological.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
SchmuckyTheCat. SchmuckyTheCat from past discussions seems to have some knowledge of Asia. So if US English is more correct in China as a whole the US spellings should be accepted as correct. To move this for the entire country based on one autonomous region would be a major error on our part. If SchmuckyTheCat is correct then the entire China tree needs to be inspected and changed as necessary.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pornographic cartoons
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: OK, I'm blushing here. Most of what this category contains is animation, so that only seems right to not limit to cartoons (generally regarded as a subset of animation that utilizes caricature, though the line dividing what is and isn't cartoon is of course a gray area). It might be possible for this category to be completely restricted to animation by renaming to
Category:Pornographic animation with all non-animation restricted to
Category:Erotic comics, though that might seem a bit harsh if the distinction between non-animated cartoons and comics need be maintained.
4.254.86.250 (
talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at the more broad category tree,
Category:Cartooning is the main category and comics, animation, anime, caricatures, etc. fall somewhere underneath that. That suggests to me that "cartoons" might already encompass annimation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No rename.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 07:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the info at
Category:Documentary films, and because
Documentary film clearly includes television. And note that the nominated category is apparently not tagged. That said, there does seem to be some confusion in naming here. I also see that
Category:Documentary television exists as a subcat of
Category:Documentaries. So some consistency here would probably be a good idea. - jc37 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Online commenting available through Disqus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature of these networks. See also
this discussion on a related category from the same user.
LeSnail (
talk) 21:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; this is a technical feature of some websites and not a defining characteristic.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Although this software package is visible to the user, I can't see grouping web sites based on which software packages they are running.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; not defining for subjects being so categorized.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial, non-defining of these sites.
Resolute 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Would someone please explain to me what non-defining means? and why is (almost) eveyone parroting this term - I was told this was not a vote, but consensus building?
Ottawahitech (
talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)reply
There is no set definition, but
this section may shed some light on your question. A characteristic of a topic is generally considered to be defining for that topic if it is reflects information that would be essential for a short, one- or two-sentence summary of the topic. For instance, a description of the
Yom language would need to mention that it is a member of the
Gur languages group and is
spoken in Benin.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Companies acquired by BCE
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Renameper nom. Bell Canada is not the primary meaning of the acronym 'BCE', which happens to be ambiguous even in a business context – e.g., Banco Central del Ecuador. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 23:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Bell Canada and BCE are not synonymous, BCE is the parent company to Bell Canada (BCE is Bell Canada Enterprises) Bell Canada is a phone company, while BCE has diverse interests (such as
CTVglobemedia) .
65.92.181.184 (
talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
You're right. Closer inspection reveals that
CHUM Limited and
CTV Television Network were acquired by Bell Media, a subsidiary of BCE that appears to be separate from Bell Canada. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Froth Pumps
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This newly created category seems to be a reasonable stub with reliable references. I am unqualified to judge whether this should be merged into
Centrifugal pump. It certainly doesn't belong in category space.
LeSnail (
talk) 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support and speedy do it - I'd do it myself but one can't "move" a category via tab! -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Volcanoes by geochronology
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to "by geological period".
Timrollpickering (
talk) 21:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains sub-categories of volcanoes of each geological time period.
Geochronology is an unnecessarily opaque and complex term for a category title for volcanoes grouped by age. "Volcanoes by age" is a much simpler and much more obvious category name, which would improve clarity of content and ease of navigation.
GeoWriter (
talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Christian religious leaders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep & cleanup.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The problem with this cateogry is that there are too many people in it who ought to be reclassified into sub-cats.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep; this is a call for cleanup at best. This is the obvious Christian subcat for
Category:Religious leaders by religion, and if it were abolished all these categories would get upmerged there without addressing the question of definition. Otherwise, the entire "religious leaders" category is suspect.-
choster (
talk) 20:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep but needs tidying. I don't see the
WP:OR argument, assuming that "Christian religious leaders" is explicitly a defining characteristic in every case.--
Northernhenge (
talk) 22:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Work at home
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge & delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 12:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Early telecommunications
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge & delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- Any question as to what is "early" is a POV issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Command staff occupations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The military is not the only organization that utilizes a command staff making the current title ambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soviet occupations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I was wondering why soviet jobs were unique, only to find out that was not the topic here. Clearly an ambiguous title that needs addressing. Not sure that the proposed name is the best choice, but if there is a better one out there, please suggest it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Note. This is not the only like named category, so there will be additional renames needed if there is a consensus for this one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename name is clearer and I can't think of better one.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be clearer to rename them all Category:Occupations by foo military?
Mangoe (
talk) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian comic characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Very misleading category name. It implies that these charterers are from Russian comics instead of fictional Russians in stories from publishers that are not necessarily Russian themselves. It has been used to replace
Category:Fictional Russian people, which follows naming conventions found to be more acceptable for categories collecting these types of articles the last time "Nationality comics character" categories were looked at.
J Greb (
talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete poorly named category of fictional characters by nationality. Due to problems in the current membership of the cat, I don't suggest upmerging to
Category:Fictional Russian people. - jc37 05:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Humor
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename & create redirect. There's a clash between the
WP:RETAIN clause of
WP:ENGVAR and the convention of following the main article; the prevalent feeling is that the article should take precedence.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, and keep a category redirect. There's no compelling reason to prefer one spelling over the other except that the category should follow the article. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- This is another case of US/UK orthography. We should follow the main article.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename, keep redirect. No good reason really to not match the category to the article name. ENGVAR issues should be applied to country-specific subcategories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename Categories should follow the main article unless they are clearly misguided.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Neutral, per
WP:ENGVAR. This is one of those moments where the article name is less care-worthy, imo. It's far easier to move a page
boldly than to change a category name (which can have more of a potential to adversely affect navigation). Redirects are cheap in article space, and
pipe tricks are possible. Not so in categories. Anyway, just please make sure that whichever way this goes, the other has a category redirect. - jc37 05:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:ENGVAR which does not mandate that we have to use one variation of English over any other. While categories and articles tend to mirror each other, there is no policy that says they must. So the reason proposed in this case is not sufficient to justify a rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.